Software vs Hardware

[Shabdahbriah]

i disagree with all of you, let's argue!

Where’s the layered argument in that?

It's where he comes back with an accusation of an error regardless of any response, and in effect adds a new 'layer' to the argument, in HIS mind, and thus perpetuating the argument for its own sake, like a gnat trapped in the folds of a camels sphincter.

[BONES]

He used a different term.

Yes, that's what I said.

He didn't say anything about there being a difference or that one word had a diff meaning to another.

Nobody said he did, that's just you going off on a tangent that didn't exist until you created it. Learn to read what's actually written, FFS.

You are putting words into his mouth.

No, I wasn't. I made a simple observation, the rest of it is all of your invention.

I just call it 'making presets' because that's what I do. I make a sound, and save it as a preset.

Exactly, although I tend to call mine "patches", to differentiate them from the "presets" that come with the instrument. If you watch the credits for any film or TV programme, you will see that there is usually someone credited with "Sound Design". That's not the person who programs the synths, it's a far more complex and involved job than that, probably as important as the composer.

It's always been used as a sound design tool, it's just technology makes it easier now than back in the day

As I said, it goes back way further than that, to the first time someone thought of adding a second violin to an ensemble so it could be heard over the other instruments. That's what makes orchestral music so powerful, the sheer scale of the sound. They just kept adding (p)layers until it started to become overwhelming. (See what I did there?)

It's amazing that people are arguing that layering two sounds together to make a new sound is anything but sound design

I call that "mixing", as would most people, I think. To give it the opposite perspective to your earlier comment, I'd suggest that layering is far less useful/necessary these days than it once was, simply because of the tools we have available to make any individual timbre do whatever job we want or need it to. e.g. In the 1970s and '80s, if you wanted to get a big, fat bassline it was often necessary to layer two or more synths to get the sound you were after but these days, there are so many effects you can add to enhance the sound any way you can think of, that you should hardly ever need to layer multiple synths to get the job done.

I remember my first mixer, a Boss thing, had three band fixed EQ, which was amazing, except it only went to +/- 4dB (or maybe 6, it was a long time ago). That meant if the bottom end of your bass synth wasn't there, you weren't going to get much out of it using EQ. And if the bottom end was too much, you couldn't do much to tame it with EQ, either, so you'd layer it with another sound to get the balance you needed. The trouble then, of course, was that if two of my synths were going to do the bassline, it didn't leave me much to fill out the arrangement, so I worked hard to make every instrument do what I needed without having to layer anything. By the time I had all the parts I could possibly need, probably by the time I had an ESQ-M, it had become habit so I've never really used layering for anything. Even though we tend to use two or three basslines in our songs, they are never playing the same thing, so I don't see it as layering in the traditional sense. To me it's mixing.

There is even advanced layering sound design with "vector" synths which are mixing various sound sources and changing the volumes of each. The Moog Animoog Z is a notable example, we could also talk about a few Rob Papen ones.

You could argue that it's true of any synth with more than one oscillator, or even single osc synths like the Roland Juno, which layers the different waveforms. But that's not what we mean when we talk about layering, is it? To me, layering is two separate instruments playing the same part. The exception to that might be layering drum sounds within an instrument like Battery, which we do fairly regularly.

I see no benefit in “intellectual exercises” like this… what matters using a technique when it’s appropriate to get the results, anything else is a waste of time and a distraction from making music, imho.

I think intellectual exercises like this have their place. How often do you see people doing something a particular way because that's how it was done 40 or 50 years ago, rather than using all the tools at our disposal today to do it more efficiently/effectively?

Acoustic instruments. No need to turn on, no need for electricity, just play.

Bullshit. Take the case out of the cupboard, open the case, remove the instrument, check the tuning (or the reed or whatever), then get the correct grip/posture all organised and then you can think about playing. By that time, I'm half-way through a song on my PC but, with any luck, you might be ready to contribute to the second chorus.

[Morgaxx]

If your instrument is in its case, in a cupboard no less, you are doing it wrong or don't care that much. Takes me as long to walk into a room and sit as it does you. I reach and grasp an instrument while at the same time putting it where it needs to be. Now I'm playing. If you are doing it right your position and playing have started before you get in the room. Some people are just not musicians or artists (at the soul level) and that's you BONES. But man you do take the bait and run

[Jac459]

There is even advanced layering sound design with "vector" synths which are mixing various sound sources and changing the volumes of each. The Moog Animoog Z is a notable example, we could also talk about a few Rob Papen ones.

You could argue that it's true of any synth with more than one oscillator, or even single osc synths like the Roland Juno, which layers the different waveforms.

Definitely. It is just that here it doesn't s kind of more advanced as you get an easy way to do a lot of variations in the mix (which would be possible to be done without though).

But that's not what we mean when we talk about layering, is it? To me, layering is two separate instruments playing the same part.

Agreed also. A very straight forward sound design technique I use with Bitwig is to put 2 VSTs in a Bitwig instrument container and use an XY controller to modulate the respective volumes and other things (decays, cut-offs...).
Generally I put a slight OTT in the container in order to really glue the sounds as one.
Another derivative of this technique is to use one sound as the attack (like a mallet) and have another sound with a slight midi delay playing after to be the body of the sound after the 1st instrument.

[Jac459]

If your instrument is in its case, in a cupboard no less, you are doing it wrong or don't care that much. Takes me as long to walk into a room and sit as it does you. I reach and grasp an instrument while at the same time putting it where it needs to be. Now I'm playing. If you are doing it right your position and playing have started before you get in the room. Some people are just not musicians or artists (at the soul level) and that's you BONES. But man you do take the bait and run

I think you are answering seriously to what was just a joke.

[Morgaxx]

If your instrument is in its case, in a cupboard no less, you are doing it wrong or don't care that much. Takes me as long to walk into a room and sit as it does you. I reach and grasp an instrument while at the same time putting it where it needs to be. Now I'm playing. If you are doing it right your position and playing have started before you get in the room. Some people are just not musicians or artists (at the soul level) and that's you BONES. But man you do take the bait and run

I think you are answering seriously to what was just a joke.

Thanks, but I am aware of BONES way. That's why I responded with something funny for him.

[Jac459]

If your instrument is in its case, in a cupboard no less, you are doing it wrong or don't care that much. Takes me as long to walk into a room and sit as it does you. I reach and grasp an instrument while at the same time putting it where it needs to be. Now I'm playing. If you are doing it right your position and playing have started before you get in the room. Some people are just not musicians or artists (at the soul level) and that's you BONES. But man you do take the bait and run

I think you are answering seriously to what was just a joke.

Thanks, but I am aware of BONES way. That's why I responded with something funny for him.

Ok, I let you both have fun then.

[syntonica]

What was this thread about again?

[swilow11]

Boats, violins, probably veganism

[vurt]

Boats, violins, probably veganism

the big 3.

[whassup]

Boats, violins, probably veganism

So not oil and toasters. That was Spy Game. OK then.

[syntonica]

Boats, violins, probably veganism

So not oil and toasters. That was Spy Game. OK then.

Damn! I hate when I miss an episode. It's that toasters as in makers of hot, tasty bread products, or as in Jamaican rappers?

Both are fine with me, actually...

[whassup]

Boats, violins, probably veganism

So not oil and toasters. That was Spy Game. OK then.

Damn! I hate when I miss an episode. It's that toasters as in makers of hot, tasty bread products, or as in Jamaican rappers?

Both are fine with me, actually...

Episode? Now I might have missed a thing...
I was quoting the movie with Robert Redford.

[frag]

Honestly, I don’t give a f**k (to put it a gentle and educated way) if it’s sound design, production or arrangement (or anything else). I only care for the actual result.

I see no benefit in “intellectual exercises” like this… what matters using a technique when it’s appropriate to get the results, anything else is a waste of time and a distraction from making music, imho.

I guess that's it!

People either remember the track, or not. There's music I really don't like, but if I remember it, they must be doing something right
Music is not that different from literature, painting etc. It needs to provide a sense of meaning (information) in order to be remembered.
Even the most stupid dance track is memorable to people who like to dance. To them, it simply means: DANCE!

But doing some theory is not bad, it gives you more choices. You can figure out what to say, and how to say it...

[BONES]

Another derivative of this technique is to use one sound as the attack (like a mallet) and have another sound with a slight midi delay playing after to be the body of the sound after the 1st instrument.

Ultravox used to do something similar. According to an interview I read 30+ years ago, they used to layer a harpsichord sound over their strings to give them a punchy attack. I've never really tried to listen for it and I've never noticed it, either, but apparently it is there. I can't remember which record they'd have been talking about.